That crazy Wolfowitz is at it again....

[RightIsWrong]

....So that we can see how dangerous the world really is and how the next administration is able to respond.

In his response to a new book by Robert Kagan, Wolfowitz drops this very interesting nugget at to end his review:

Full article by Paul W.

History?s answer to that question will depend on several factors, including the leadership capacity of the next US administration and whether Iraq ultimately comes to be viewed as a failure or a success ? albeit a costly one. But America?s future leadership role may depend even more on how threatening the world appears. Historically, that leadership role has often emerged out of a compelling crisis: Pearl Harbour, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran hostage crisis, Iraq?s invasion of Kuwait, or the attacks of 9/11. Paradoxically, the relative security which Americans have enjoyed since 2001 makes it easier to doubt the necessity of shouldering the burden of leadership. One hopes it will not take another calamity to convince us of the need for a vigilant foreign policy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Your summary is not supported by his comments. Try again.

 

[Genx87]

Stretch much? Where does he say we "need" another pearl harbor?

While you are at it, change your title to include we need another soviet invasion of afghanistan, 9-11, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Iran to take our diplomats hostage.

The world would be better off without truthiers who make shit up to fit their agenda.


edit: btw which far left bomb throwing website did you pick that title up from?

Huffingtonpost, rense, moveon?

 

[DealMonkey]

Interestingly enough, only Republicans seem to believe that they would benefit via either of the potential outcomes:

1.) If there is no terrorist attack on their watch, this (falsely, of course) proves that their War on Terror has succeeded in preventing another attack.

2.) If there is another attack, they win again because it supports their mantra that we're living in an extremely dangerous world with islamofascists who want to kill us, etc., allowing them to grab even more executive power than they've already grabbed.

 

[PokerGuy]

As much as I have disdain for Wolfowitz and his cronies, where exactly does he say we need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

He says "One hopes it will not take another calamity to convince us of the need for a vigilant foreign policy.". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interestingly enough, only Republicans seem to believe that they would benefit via either of the potential outcomes:

1.) If there is no terrorist attack on their watch, this (falsely, of course) proves that their War on Terror has succeeded in preventing another attack.

2.) If there is another attack, they win again because it supports their mantra that we're living in an extremely dangerous world with islamofascists who want to kill us, etc., allowing them to grab even more executive power than they've already grabbed.

And in reverse

If there is an attack, the the war had failed and created more followers

If there is no attack, it was because the message was sent and the perps succeeded in weakening the US.


The knife can cut both ways.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Your summary is not supported by his comments. Try again.

Actually, please don't.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think what we see here is a basic and common belief in sympathetic magic. If we drop our guard or show weakness we will be attacked whereas we can avert the evil eye by dancing around the defense and vigilance bond fire 7 nights a week.

It would be similar to preventing a mugging by wearing garlic.

The world is insane and our best exponents of our generalized insanity are bent on killing this or that enemy they have generated in their head while another counterpart to that insanity is having paranoid delusions that can only be curbed by control. We must control the insane so they can't harm us.

Yes, the world is insane with one insane group driving another insane group even crazier and more and more escalation.

Hate is fear is hate is fear. Only the individual can ever be free. Only you can see into your own madness and die to it. Only you can go to heaven. Only you can die to hate and love. Nobody else will come with you. Nobody else will ever have the strength or courage.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As much as I have disdain for Wolfowitz and his cronies, where exactly does he say we need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

He says "One hopes it will not take another calamity to convince us of the need for a vigilant foreign policy.". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Sure, he doesn't say need, but he does suggest it would be helpful. How does that sound reasonable to you? Do you like the idea of another 9/11 riling up the public to be misslead into another quagmire like Iraq?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As much as I have disdain for Wolfowitz and his cronies, where exactly does he say we need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

He says "One hopes it will not take another calamity to convince us of the need for a vigilant foreign policy.". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Sure, he doesn't say need, but he does suggest it would be helpful. How does that sound reasonable to you? Do you like the idea of another 9/11 riling up the public to be misslead into another quagmire like Iraq?

nice straw man.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
As much as I have disdain for Wolfowitz and his cronies, where exactly does he say we need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

He says "One hopes it will not take another calamity to convince us of the need for a vigilant foreign policy.". Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Sure, he doesn't say need, but he does suggest it would be helpful. How does that sound reasonable to you? Do you like the idea of another 9/11 riling up the public to be misslead into another quagmire like Iraq?

nice straw man.

+1 :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

It is lame to make unsupported statements.

That said, I LOL at "relative security".

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Wolfowitz has enriched himself and his sycophants, at the expense of the DoD, the World Bank, the US military, American taxpayers, the country of Iraq, and untold Iraqi citizens.

So, if another terrorist attack does happen, Wolfowitz has something else in common with Cheney, Rove, Kristol, Feith, Delay, Perle, Guiliani, O'Reilly. None of them served in our military. These are the "macho boys".